![Atop Empire State- in construction; Chrysler Bldg & [Daily] News in middle foreground. (1931)](http://cdn1.retronaut.co/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Atop-Empire-State-in-construction-Chrysler-Bldg-Daily-News-in-middle-foreground.-1931--199x123.jpg "Balancing on the Empire State, 1920s")
…
Thank you to The Smiling Victorian group
Victorians Smiling II
If you like this, check out:
Georgian Panorama
Surfing, 1890
Celebrities, 1970s
Devil's Tower, 1890s / 2011
Iggy and the Stooges, Farmington High School, MI, December 5th, 1970
Abandoned Scandinavian Houses
Abandoned Homes under Stars
Iconatomy
'Fly', 1965, by Melvin Sokolsky
NASA Photography Manual, 1984
Octoauto, 1910
The Invisible Mother
Life-Size 'Hot Wheels' 1968 Camaro
Retro Warfare
Beach Oil wells, Southern California, c.1895-1940 
MiG-105 EPOS (Experimental Passenger Orbital Aircraft)
Soviet Women of WWII
Welcoming the Soviet Liberating Army
The Brighton "Daddy Long-Legs", 1896-1901
Husband-Hunting Tips from New Romance, 1950s
Invitation to a Ladies evening, 1897
These are beautiful! Something about the smiles make the photos so real and accessible. You can so easily imagine them in modern clothes, so similar to the people of today!
#3 is Edward Norton time traveling.
Whoops, I meant #4 is Edward Norton time traveling. (It says 5 when you mouse over it).
HAHA I thought you were suggesting that Ed Nrton was a time traveling cross dresser. Now THAT is a movie I’d see.
Lovely to see another one of these, the original was one of my very favourites from this site.
Me too, Estelle
Looking at the fashions, e.g. the shirt waist worn by a few of the subjects, seems that quite a few – if not most of these images – are post 1901, and actually, really should be labelled Edwardian, not Victorian. Or am I wrong?
That first one looks like Hailee Steinfeld!
These are great photos, but there is something very striking about the first one. That girl seems like she wouldn’t look out of place in today’s world.
Once again, these are wonderful; a real glimpse into the past – or a glimpse into the real past
Phil, you are right! The Flickr group “The Smiling Victorian” specifies that they accept pictures from the Edwardian period, too, which is why pictures (like the fifth one, of my great-great grandmother in May of 1902) appear.
These photos are so incredible–like everyone says, once they’re smiling, they look just like people today. This site is amazing.
Yes, I was thinking that these pictures reminded me of one taken of my grandmother in 1914 or so… she would be 102 today. Same boots and hair. The changes see saw in her lifetime are mind-boggling–I am almost scared to think of the changes I might see if I am lucky and live as long as she did!
It’s good to see that people of the Victorian era were actually able to smile. The only true Victorian I ever had extended contact with was my gran Katherine Macomber, and I swear she never ONCE smiled in my presence.
awww their teeth arent that bad. thats the only reason ive heard for why they never smile
No wonder they are laughing. Most of them were off their heads on barbiturates that they bought over the counter at the cemist for 2d a throw!!
The first photo in the bunch is absolutely incredible. Hauntingly beautiful expression. The eyes are hypnotising, drawing your gaze into the picture,not wanting to look away.
I agree with the others saying the first girl look so modern and haunting..
Thank you for the message.
Steven
“their teeth arent that bad. thats the only reason ive heard for why they never smile”
While that certainly could be true, a much more likely reason is the film. I don’t know what speed films they had available to them then but “slow” film required special accommodation. After the American Civil War but before the turn of the century photography continued to use stands to help people remain motionless for the 30 seconds or so required to properly expose the film. This pose doesn’t lend itself to smiling.
This resulted in a lack of action pictures from this period. You generally don’t see people running, or riding by on a horse. The result of movement produces blurred images or even a ghostly picture with everything stationary appearing just fine but anything in motion not appearing.
Well, that’s my two bits anyway.
It would be super cool to get som background info on these photos. For example in a comment above 14 October Sandi tells us that’s her grandmother in one of the pics. Why not put some info about who, why and when under the photos?
As a professional photographer & somebody who restores antique photos of all types, the first looks very much like it is simply an edited version of a modern photo. The depth of field, clarity of focus, and the lighting (or lack there of really) seem very out of place for a camera system that required a high amount of light and exposure time for something even half as clear. The girl would have to hold her breath to be that clear at that close a range, even the tiny shifts of regular breathing would have caused blurring.
Lovely photos, although the first one doesn’t look old at all, not convinced by that one.
I love these. This is my copy:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/amylehr/5820155032/
I bought the girl holding the doll as a cabinet card, and wonder how many more “original” images of her were sold..maybe as a scam from a dealer, which is possible.
Or if my posted image was just “borrowed” from the internet. If that’s the case, I’m not fretting, as she is not my family member and I didn’t pay much for the image.
But I would prefer that people ask for permission if images are noted as personal..passed down in the family.
Cheers. Nice collection, Amy
By 1900 there was not only some fairly fast film, but also flash powder that could provide very clear images with quick exposures.
The Victorians (although these people are mostly Edwardian) usually didn’t smile because they thought having their picture taken was a very rare and solemn event. Most had their pics taken once or twice in their lifetimes and it was expensive and a serious occasion.